Results 1 to 96 of 96
  1. #1
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,631

    Listen! Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness - NEW Follow up story

    Sandsberry: Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness

    I know this is preaching to the choir - but it is refreshing to see this point of view coming from an avid hiker

    August 15, 2011 by Scott Sandsberry
    YAKIMA, Wash. — Having spent three decades backpacking in the boonies, I’m a bit miserly about sharing the trails. When I’m enjoying the breeze in the trees many miles from the nearest road, I don’t much like encountering mountain bikers, motorcyclists, horseback riders or, for that matter, even other hikers.

    Motorcycles are noisy, horses drop trail apples, some hikers sing off-key or bring barking dogs, and mountain bikers, well, I resent them for being able to get where they’re going a lot faster than I can.

    Fort-unately for cur-mudgeons like me, when I’m hiking in designated Wilderness, I don’t have to deal with mountain bikers. They’re not allowed in Wilderness, which means they’re locked out of nearly 4.5 million acres in this state and barred from more than 171,000 square miles of spectacular backcountry across the country.

    But here’s the thing: They shouldn’t be kept out.

    Click here to read more
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  2. #2
    Des(s)ert Rat
    Reputation: screampint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    4,961
    Thank you for the link!

  3. #3
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    a surprisingly well-written piece.

  4. #4
    TrinityRiverKerplunk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    855
    I like this quote from the piece," Every user group is having an impact on it,” says Tim Van Beek.

    I think that is a great saying from someone within the trail community. Like I said on another thread, if the hiker isn't Bigfoot then they don't belong in a wilderness area any more than I do. The continued discrimination of off-roading is unacceptable, I truly love using my voting power now to try and change those crazy decisions.
    Good friction shifting is getting hard to find nowadays....

  5. #5
    ******
    Reputation: monzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,990
    Awesome article. Thank you for the link! Plus rep coming as soon as I can rep you again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    Id scrap the passion forum all together, its a breeding ground for unicorn milkers, rainbow chasers and candy cotton farters.

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Yes, that article reminds me of one of our very own beaches here in Hampton Roads, Virginia Beach. You see, back in the day, I looked forward to those large family road trips to Jones Beach on Long Island, where all the women prepared boatloads of home cooked food, and the men were responsible for hauling, setting up, and tending to the BBQ for the hot dogs, burghers, etc. We had loads of beach chairs, water toys, coolers full of soda and brews, and a fun time was had by all. Today, we have Virginia Beach, where you are not allowed to have "any fun;" no coolers, no bottles, no lawn chairs, no food, no brews, no tents, no anything....just you, a blanket, and sun tan oil. It appears these enviro-nazi's believe that the wilderness is no place to have good healthy recreational fun, and those in charge of monitoring those who enter, look for every reason and then some, to just piss on your day citing real and/or imagined regulations.

    I fear the day is coming when a beach or a wilderness area will only be viewed on the big screen like in the movie, "Soylent Green."

    Thanks.

  7. #7
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post

    I fear the day is coming when a beach or a wilderness area will only be viewed on the big screen like in the movie, "Soylent Green."

    Thanks.



    No fear, the people of this country are tired of being pissed on and are going to take this country back from the overlords that wish to enslave us. Remember to vote kids.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    76
    Sign me up for the first epic ride when the decision to change is made. Could you imagine doing the Pacific Crest Trail by MTB?

  9. #9
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    Quote Originally Posted by wavejim View Post
    Sign me up for the first epic ride when the decision to change is made. Could you imagine doing the Pacific Crest Trail by MTB?
    A change in permissions of bicycle access to Wilderness won't necessarily result in permission to ride bicycles on any particular trail or group of trails. What it WOULD do at least at first is permit continued bicycle access to trails in newly designated Wilderness. I HOPE it would reopen some trails that were once closed simply due to designation as Wilderness.

    However it absolutely would be nice to have many long cross-country routes to choose from for bikepacking. There are some, but the option to cross Wilderness would definitely expand possibilities more.

  10. #10
    TrinityRiverKerplunk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    855
    The Tunnel Creek trail located along the Dosewallips and drops over into the Quilcene side is one that I'd really like to see opened up. I don't advocate all trails being opened, but there are quite a few that count in my book as "all-arounders" designed for the public as a whole, not just for one particular group.
    Good friction shifting is getting hard to find nowadays....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    137
    Very interesting article, and an issue that keeps popping up. I've lived near wilderness areas in different parts of the country, some more crowded and used than others. While I definitely lamented that I couldn't use my bike to get up that jeep road so I could hike a 14-er in Colorado (ahem, Lake Como road) I also see the benefit IN SOME HIGH USE areas for banning bikes. Namely California just doesn't have gridlocks on the 405. I just did a day hike on the John Muir Trail (granted, it is middle of summer and was a popular section) and I felt like I was on hiker highway. I was never alone for the whole day, and it was a Tuesday to boot. Bikers would also have easy access to this area and it would totally ruin the visions of John Muir and the Sierra wilderness experience (this is not a stab at bikers, the millions of hikers also completely deters from the experience for me too, but I don't own the woods and I've got to share). What would be nice, because if given the choice I will pick to travel by bike 9 times out of 10 rather than hiking, is to issue a permitting system to bikers just like hikers. Something not to ban us entirely from the trail but something to keep the numbers at a manageable level. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Back to Colorado though, some of those wilderness areas are so untouched that I don't see any reason why bikes can't go back there. Self propelled all the way. Just whatever you pack in, pack out.

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by 3blackbikes View Post
    Very interesting article, and an issue that keeps popping up. I've lived near wilderness areas in different parts of the country, some more crowded and used than others. While I definitely lamented that I couldn't use my bike to get up that jeep road so I could hike a 14-er in Colorado (ahem, Lake Como road) I also see the benefit IN SOME HIGH USE areas for banning bikes. Namely California just doesn't have gridlocks on the 405. I just did a day hike on the John Muir Trail (granted, it is middle of summer and was a popular section) and I felt like I was on hiker highway. I was never alone for the whole day, and it was a Tuesday to boot. Bikers would also have easy access to this area and it would totally ruin the visions of John Muir and the Sierra wilderness experience (this is not a stab at bikers, the millions of hikers also completely deters from the experience for me too, but I don't own the woods and I've got to share). What would be nice, because if given the choice I will pick to travel by bike 9 times out of 10 rather than hiking, is to issue a permitting system to bikers just like hikers. Something not to ban us entirely from the trail but something to keep the numbers at a manageable level. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Back to Colorado though, some of those wilderness areas are so untouched that I don't see any reason why bikes can't go back there. Self propelled all the way. Just whatever you pack in, pack out.
    Therein lies the rub, for way too long, I have witnessed the concept of whatever you bring with you (read: food scraps, cans, bottles, cigarette butts, condoms, plastic refuse, etc.) you just leave behind. The thinking of too many people over many years was just throw it away, and somebody will take care of it. While I am no fan of many of these Byzantine enviro-nutbag inspired regulations, I can see how they have come about. For decades, we as the premier top feeder, have sullied our forests, our beaches, and our oceans; I can still remember how boaters 10 miles+ out from the Outer Banks would just dump all their trash in the ocean before heading back to port. I can remember back in the 80's, the US Navy dumping tons of trash into the abyss without so much as a thought to the environmental impact of what seemed to be an enormous body of water. I remember how as a kid, my parents, my uncles, my aunts, and my cousins would get to the beach early Sunday morning, and spend a good hour policing up the spot that we wanted to lay claim to for the day, because the previous "occupants" from the day before didn't give a rat's azz and left all their trash behind (and this was way, way before people had an environmental conscience).

    We only have ourselves to blame for these fanatical. rabid, and overzealous rules, and it will be quite some time before humans can be trusted to do the right thing with our natural resources.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    One of the few articles on mountain biking I've actually taken the time to read, thanks
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  14. #14
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Even the Forest Service’s 1966 rule amendments regarding Wilderness use specified “mechanical transport” as something “propelled by a nonliving power source.”


  15. #15
    Adventurous Hacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    437
    They then further reinforced that position in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act of 1980:

    This national forest area has long been used as a wilderness . . . as a source of
    solitude . . . and primitive recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and bicycling. . . .

    So not only did they not exclude bikes in the beginning as a general rule, they specifically called out bikes as welcome in a specific wilderness instance.

    The whole point was to get people out in the wilds under their own power, which bikes clearly do.
    All other things are rarely equal . . .

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,788
    Good to read an even-handed argument for mountain bikers in wilderness by a hiker.

    I'm in favor of making some areas off-limits to bikes.

    I'm absolutely against the land grab that will eventually exclude me and my bike from way too much public land. There's a half-million acres of Designated Wilderness in my part of the state that makes zero sense to keep bikes out of.

    Keep fighting. Keep writing letters to your congressman. Keep giving money to organizations that will fight the fight. We only have ourselves to blame if we keep losing trails.
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  17. #17
    Have a great ride!
    Reputation: Lowkey1505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    126
    Nice article, thanks for sharing. Its refreshing to see someone using logic and reason to make a valid point not just trying to shout louder than everybody else to prove their point or get there way.
    Whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  18. #18
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    Although I am not American, the attitude being addressed in the article and all the responses could be here. It really is hard to understand why some people are so offended by bikes. Thank goodness the trend is positive. Thank goodness people realise that like-minded love of the land and the enthusiasm to build sustainable, safe, considerate and enjoyable trail is in the interest of the land. And thanks for posting this thread.

    Makes you feel almost like one of the family.

    So what do we rebel against next?

  19. #19
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,631
    Follow Up Story

    Spinning their wheels
    August 16, 2011 by Scott Sandsberry
    ...“Congress has never forbidden bicycles in the Wilderness,” Stroll says. “It’s the agencies.”

    One particularly interesting finding in Stroll’s research was that of unpublished committee hearings on the House portion of the bill that led to the Wilderness Act.

    The initial wording called for the prohibition of “motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, or landing or aircraft, (or) any other mechanized transport or delivery of persons or supplies.”

    Stroll believes that wording is fairly straightforward. “What they meant by that,” he says, “was no hauling people around and no hauling cargo around.”

    But that section of the bill was later amended to call for “no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft (and) no other form of mechanical transport.”

    And that last part — mechanical transport — has become the critical phrase agencies have used to keep bicyclists out, since bicycles are by nature mechanical and are clearly a mode of transport...

    Click Here to read the full article
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tim-H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Reaction from a hiking forum in the area. NWHikers.net - View topic - Pro "bikes in the wilderness" story in the Yakima paper

    Mixed feelings as a whole but the opponents are clearly the loudest. As long as proponents are quiet or indifferent, the opponents will keep being the only ones that make any impact.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jacklikesbeans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    300
    In the comments section they had a man post his website that is simply an unintelligent rant against mountain bikes.

    Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

    If you are looking for a good laugh check it out. The article is written like he is just looking for a fight.

  22. #22
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by jacklikesbeans View Post
    In the comments section they had a man post his website that is simply an unintelligent rant against mountain bikes.

    Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

    If you are looking for a good laugh check it out. The article is written like he is just looking for a fight.
    Ah, yes. Michael Vandeman is well known here. Do a word search here for "Vandeman". Lots of great stuff.

  23. #23
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,631
    Quote Originally Posted by jacklikesbeans View Post
    In the comments section they had a man post his website that is simply an unintelligent rant against mountain bikes.

    Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

    If you are looking for a good laugh check it out. The article is written like he is just looking for a fight.
    Quote Originally Posted by dirt farmer View Post
    Ah, yes. Michael Vandeman is well known here. Do a word search here for "Vandeman". Lots of great stuff.
    and for another great read about this lunatic (he's been at it for a while) check out his trial coverage by Peter Frick Wright:
    The Mike Vandeman Trial – Peter Frick-Wright (.com)

    Mike V attacked a couple MTB'ers and finally got busted for it....effectively sidelining his POV as that of a whackjob.
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Thank His Eminence this enviro nutbag is not a Conservative, Republican, Tea Party guy...he's one of those other things.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    vanderman sounds like the type who would stretch a cable across a trail, Hope he attacks someone who kicks the living crap out of him.


    As for the article thanks for posting up. This pretty much sum's up my thoughts when I first started seriously biking
    "I’m not a mountain biker: In my (very) brief attempt at being one, the uphills turned my “power source” thighs into aching noodles and the downhills made me fearful that I was shortening my stay among the living.
    For those needing cliff notes
    Not according to numerous studies on the trail impacts of different user groups. Cyclists braking on steep downhills cause damage, while extremely popular mountain-biking trails can develop a single-track groove that can increase erosion. But studies say none of that is any worse — and, in most cases, is actually less damaging — than horses’ hooves or even the holes poked by those spring-loaded trekking poles.
    Under comments Jim S summed up the enviro movment perfectly


    The mainstream “environmental movement” has made itself completely irrelevant to anyone under 40 by turning “wilderness” into a place where:

    -No one is allowed to have any fun, ever
    -In fact, we shouldn’t really even be outdoors, and we should all feel guilty for defiling the outdoors by our very presence

    So instead of tackling real, destructive issues like encroaching development, often via sweetheart land swaps on National Forest lands, mainstream “environmentalists” spend most of their time writing angry letters about mountain bikers

  26. #26
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    Therein lies the rub, for way too long, I have witnessed the concept of whatever you bring with you (read: food scraps, cans, bottles, cigarette butts, condoms, plastic refuse, etc.) you just leave behind. The thinking of too many people over many years was just throw it away, and somebody will take care of it. While I am no fan of many of these Byzantine enviro-nutbag inspired regulations, I can see how they have come about. For decades, we as the premier top feeder, have sullied our forests, our beaches, and our oceans; I can still remember how boaters 10 miles+ out from the Outer Banks would just dump all their trash in the ocean before heading back to port. I can remember back in the 80's, the US Navy dumping tons of trash into the abyss without so much as a thought to the environmental impact of what seemed to be an enormous body of water. I remember how as a kid, my parents, my uncles, my aunts, and my cousins would get to the beach early Sunday morning, and spend a good hour policing up the spot that we wanted to lay claim to for the day, because the previous "occupants" from the day before didn't give a rat's azz and left all their trash behind (and this was way, way before people had an environmental conscience).

    We only have ourselves to blame for these fanatical. rabid, and overzealous rules, and it will be quite some time before humans can be trusted to do the right thing with our natural resources.
    Isn't it time to accept that you cannot stop some people doing the wrong thing. By that I mean littering, damage and general disrespect for the land, other people, rules, laws and anything. By keeping the rest of the environmentally conscious population out of the bush, all that's left is what the headmaster of our school liked to refer to as the "idiot fringe". No-one is there to repair, clean up, report or give a damn. Should this really be the benchmark for regulations applying to everyone else? Is there really any evidence or reason to treat us all as the lowest common denominator?

    In northern coastal NSW (Australia), the National Parks and Wildlife Service has entered into cooperative arrangements with some local councils to allow access so local communities can continue recreational activities of low impact, often activities that preceded the parks' designation. No surprise the outcome has been an improvement in guardianship and reduced hostile impact on the land. The flow on seems to be a recognition of the needs and rights of the people, in particular MTB and now the NPWS is doing needs assessments with the potential view of widening that access through other parks in the state.

    Sadly, in Qld, just over the border, things are far more uncertain. Although large areas of restricted access in southeast Qld are far from wilderness (previously logged, grazed or used for powerlines is most common) and despite there being very limited NPWS staffing to care for the land, at this time no such progress is apparent here. Horses, motorbikes and dogs access the local national park all the time and no-one stops them. However, refurbishing or re-routing a trail that has been there twice as long as the park and is environmentally unsound and unsafe, but used by loads of people could realistically end up you in court. It seems so strange that the reduction of legal exposure (for the land manager), environmental care and improvement is somehow a threat.

    What has happened here and obviously in the USA as well, is that the regulated desire to protect the land is actually leading to 2 outcomes: people who do deserve to access and enjoy the land are excluded and those who don't give a $h!t continue to go in. The risk is that entire generations of the populace will lose contact with our land, while NPWS staff who can't tell the difference between an "illegal" trail and a divided creek course (true story) will be the only people legally in there - in their 4WD's. Oh and the beekeepers as well??!!

    Fortunately, apart from limited areas of more undisturbed land (I doubt anything within 200km of here has not been openly accessed in the past), there seems to be no conflict between hikers (and runners) and riders. The only opposition is the authorities and even in places they do allow trails, the regulations and restrictions border on paranoid. They are so worried that someone may take legal action that change with the times is resisted.

    Ancient trails in Europe and Asia continue to define the environment and the human spirit after thousands of years. How did the modern world go so wrong for us? It is our land isn't it?

  27. #27
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by az.mtns View Post
    no fear, the people of this country are tired of being pissed on and are going to take this country back from the overlords that wish to enslave us. Remember to vote kids.
    FOR RON PAUL!!!!

    MTBP
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  28. #28
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,190
    I love this bit:

    "But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason why departments of transportation have standards for bicycle trails that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc. Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out any possible health benefit."

    We are all psychopaths according to this idiot. He has a PhD after his name... 'Psychologically Damaged' maybe???

  29. #29
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Damn liberal wingers with PhD's = Soylent Green

  30. #30
    74 & 29 pilot
    Reputation: MTB Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    I love this bit:

    "But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason why departments of transportation have standards for bicycle trails that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc. Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out any possible health benefit."

    We are all psychopaths according to this idiot. He has a PhD after his name... 'Psychologically Damaged' maybe???
    That is RIDICULOUS and HILARIOUS all at the same time! I hate people that think they know what is best for everyone else

    MTBP
    MTBP
    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
    Turn on the truth: http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Of course, all of these trails are already open to them, if they choose to walk.
    Right, "Bikers can ride these trails if they just stop being bikers" ergo, bikers can't ride these trails.

    the ramblings of a single, lonely, hate-filled, middle-aged man.

    Hahah okay, one more:
    They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see, rather than the quality of their experience
    ...is he joking?
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    Damn liberal wingers with PhD's = Soylent Green
    Are you serious? One of these days I'm going to have to start a thread and call you on all of your bs socially conservative beliefs

    EDIT: The idiot was arrested a year ago for slashing a few bikers with a handsaw on the trail. I wish he was in "I carry a gun with me while I ride" biker territory.

    10-052810-37NC
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by nikojan View Post
    Are you serious? One of these days I'm going to have to start a thread and call you on all of your bs socially conservative beliefs

    EDIT: The idiot was arrested a year ago for slashing a few bikers with a handsaw on the trail. I wish he was in "I carry a gun with me while I ride" biker territory.

    10-052810-37NC
    The lunatic most of us are talking about, the vanderman nut, is a liberal leftwing nutjob in case you didn't know.

    BTW, you have a problem with socially conservative belief's?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    The lunatic most of us are talking about, the vanderman nut, is a liberal leftwing nutjob in case you didn't know.

    BTW, you have a problem with socially conservative belief's?
    You mean like another man who I've never meet telling my wife or daughter what to do with their body? Or restricting gay marriages? Nope

    BTW, I don't believe that he's a liberal.
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    "But isn't mountain biking healthful exercise? No! Mountain biking is inherently dangerous, and cannot be made safe. Hiking trails are not designed for bicycling. They are unpredictable. There is a reason why departments of transportation have standards for bicycle trails that require a smooth surface, not too steep a grade, a no-skid surface, a minimum width, a long sight distance (no blind turns), etc. Mountain bikers regularly fall off their bikes, resulting in paraplegia, quadriplegia, or even death. This obviously cancels out any possible health benefit."
    Just the other day I was riding my favorite trail, The wide flat straightness, and some vandal had blocked the trail by laying a line of #2 pencils tip to eraser across the entire width of the trail, I had to turn around and go back to my car. I didn't want to damage my bike riding over the pencils, and I was so mad I didn't think to try and move them myself, but whatever, my ride was already ruined.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Andy Pancroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by 3blackbikes View Post
    Very interesting article, and an issue that keeps popping up. I've lived near wilderness areas in different parts of the country, some more crowded and used than others. While I definitely lamented that I couldn't use my bike to get up that jeep road so I could hike a 14-er in Colorado (ahem, Lake Como road) I also see the benefit IN SOME HIGH USE areas for banning bikes. Namely California just doesn't have gridlocks on the 405. I just did a day hike on the John Muir Trail (granted, it is middle of summer and was a popular section) and I felt like I was on hiker highway. I was never alone for the whole day, and it was a Tuesday to boot. Bikers would also have easy access to this area and it would totally ruin the visions of John Muir and the Sierra wilderness experience (this is not a stab at bikers, the millions of hikers also completely deters from the experience for me too, but I don't own the woods and I've got to share). What would be nice, because if given the choice I will pick to travel by bike 9 times out of 10 rather than hiking, is to issue a permitting system to bikers just like hikers. Something not to ban us entirely from the trail but something to keep the numbers at a manageable level. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Back to Colorado though, some of those wilderness areas are so untouched that I don't see any reason why bikes can't go back there. Self propelled all the way. Just whatever you pack in, pack out.
    Prob is, too many leave what they take in. Being from Colorado - before moving to Houston this last Dec - I've seen a lot of d-bags that think they will just bury their stuff and it will be fine...REALLY!?!?!? They aren't gone 20 minutes before some critter comes and digs it up and is either injured by what they dig up or the trash is strewn all over the place or...both!!

  37. #37
    Nickel Havr
    Reputation: Eckstream1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by jacklikesbeans View Post
    In the comments section they had a man post his website that is simply an unintelligent rant against mountain bikes.

    Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

    If you are looking for a good laugh check it out. The article is written like he is just looking for a fight.
    I love how the links to all his "cited" evidence do not exist.... I'm sure this TOOL would cry a river if the government designated a MTB only trail and he could not hike on it!

    That guy should be forcibly removed from his position at the SC!
    Quote Originally Posted by William Blake
    Great things are done when men and mountains meet. This is not done by jostling in the street .

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    On his about page:

    Art (especially Winslow Homer, Jose Orozco, Diego Rivera, Albert P. Ryder, Utamaro, A. Paul Weber), bicycling, biology
    ...self hating?
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by nikojan View Post
    You mean like another man who I've never meet telling my wife or daughter what to do with their body? Or restricting gay marriages? Nope

    BTW, I don't believe that he's a liberal.
    The theme of the thread is the restrictions placed on the use of the wilderness, not gay marriage, abortions, or whatever, so try to keep up.

    Secondly, before you say more about what little you know about this van guy, I suggest you do some research; the guy is a cradle to the grave leftwing liberal. Now, go troll somewhere else with your personal issues.

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Sandsberry: Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness

    I know this is preaching to the choir - but it is refreshing to see this point of view coming from an avid hiker
    That is one mans opinion on the subject matter, who happens to be an Outdoors writer.

    Our 2nd Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" was written 125 years before the machine gun was invented. It didn't take long for crooks to realize the advantage of such arms like the Thompson 1927 machine gun over the average citizen with their revolver or sawed off shotgun. Bonnie and Clyde immortalized and galvanized our decision makers in Washington to pretty much eliminate the average citizen from having access to such arms.

    So it is with mountain bikes and Wilderness. It didn't exist when Wilderness specifications were being implemented. It is a superior form of mechanized transport over any other type and our leaders have seen fit to abolish them from Wilderness areas, again, due to the actions of a selfish few. History repeats itself, Man will never learn that the lowest common denominator destroys it for the majority of potential responsible lawful users.

    The same can be said for gravity assist riders and their racing bikes and creating illegal trails and poaching of trails. Their actions have, at times, gotten all mountain bikers banned from areas to ride. Snow Summit at Big Bear comes to mind, as well as Irvine Ranch in Orange County, CA, which now requires supervised docent led rides every other Saturday morning.

    There are so many places to travel to and ride here in the USA, just looking at a State by State ride review, that the perceived need to allow riding is Wilderness area just doesn't exist and is a figment of mountain biker extremists imaginations. One needs to consider the needs of all outdoor enthusiasts and understand that buying a mountain bike doesn't entitle one to have a place to ride it, just as buying a gun doesn't entitle one to just discharge it or use it whereever they please, either.

    I should add that owning a Gun is a Right, not a privilege, like mountain bikes, yet they are banned from being in possession in Wilderness areas. With that in mind, I can't see how mountain bikes will ever be allowed in Wilderness areas, when one of our basic rights has been stripped of us in Wilderness areas, the Right to Bear Arms.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    The theme of the thread is the restrictions placed on the use of the wilderness, not gay marriage, abortions, or whatever, so try to keep up.

    Secondly, before you say more about what little you know about this van guy, I suggest you do some research; the guy is a cradle to the grave leftwing liberal. Now, go troll somewhere else with your personal issues.
    Saying it again and again doesn't make it right Show me where he calls himself a liberal.

    Thanks for the anon neg rep though
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation: TraumaARNP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by nikojan View Post
    Saying it again and again doesn't make it right Show me where he calls himself a liberal.

    Thanks for the anon neg rep though
    Now you're just trolling for the sake of being a contrarion, so I'm not going to lead this obviously dead horse to water.

    P.S. I didn't neg rep you; not worth the effort, though someone else found it worthy of a ding.

    Have a great day.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    Now you're just trolling for the sake of being a contrarion, so I'm not going to lead this obviously dead horse to water.

    P.S. I didn't neg rep you; not worth the effort, though someone else found it worthy of a ding.

    Have a great day.
    So, just to reiterate, you called him a liberal when he isn't. You can call it trolling if that helps you sleep at night, though you would be wrong for the second time.

    I could care less what some idiot who ironically misspelt "EINSTEIN" has to say
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  44. #44
    What does a bean mean?!
    Reputation: COTarHeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    145
    Alright fellas, neither one of you is going to change the other's mind. So lets keep this thread on task:

    Primary Objective: discussion of allowing bikes in Wilderness Areas; and perhaps the broader scope idea of merits for having some areas closed to bikes and other non-hiking uses.

    As a biker I want all the singletrack I can get my rubber on. But as a hiker I can understand having trails just for hiking based on user enjoyment and sustainability.

    Secondary Objective: pointing out absurdity in this Vandeman clown's "arguments."

    The guy admits to having not biked on a trail and clearly knows nothing about how we operate when we do. Notably with his ignorant statements about how we can't stop, don't experience nature or the trail (after he talks about how much attention we must pay to it), and are all apparently inconsiderate, short-tempered, rule-ignoring asshats who don't care about anything but our addiction*. I am also a little bothered by his apparent lust for pointing out biker injuries and deaths. I'd like to email him news stories every time a hiker got attacked by a bear or fell off a waterfall, but then again, I wouldn't enjoy pointing out the misfortunes of others like he seems to.

    Mini rant out!

    *I'll give him that he's right in that biking can be addicting

  45. #45
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    the guy is a cradle to the grave leftwing liberal.
    No. He's a cradle to grave idiot lunatic. get your facts straight.
    Last edited by Harold; 08-20-2011 at 11:45 AM.

  46. #46
    Adventurous Hacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    437

    Let's address the bogus arguments . . .

    "It didn't exist when Wilderness specifications were being implemented. It is a superior form of mechanized transport over any other type and our leaders have seen fit to abolish them from Wilderness areas",

    Apparently you missed my post early in this thread. Mountain bikes were specifically called out as a "primitive" form of transportation in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act and were, thus included.

    Also, with even a basic knowledge of the subject, you'd be aware that the original goal, along with preservation, was to get Americans off their lazy @$$e$ and out of their cars and into the woods under their own power. Therefore, the rise of the MTB as a means is within scope of the original intent, regardless of whether the original author were thinking specifically of mountain bikes or not.

    Also, are the Forest Service bureaucrats who chose to misinterpret the intent of the legislation really "our leaders?" Please.

    "There are so many places to travel to and ride here in the USA, just looking at a State by State ride review, that the perceived need to allow riding is Wilderness area just doesn't exist and is a figment of mountain biker extremists imaginations."

    Again with the most effed up argument of all. This is wrong on so many levels. I'd like to ride the Gallatin Crest near Bozeman, Mt. Didn't get to it in time and it was declared off limits and it's not even a Wilderness area yet. Just a Wilderness Study area. Yeah there's other places to ride around Bozeman (many fewer than a short time ago I might add), but there's only one Gallatin Crest. There's only one place I can have that particular experience. If I can do so without having any more impact than any other user, why shouldn't I? If it was only me, I'd probably just suck it up and move on, but it's everyone who would like to ride that route. As far as having other options, do you think it would be okay to tell hikers and equestrians they are to be excluded from over half of the roadless areas in the Rockies? That alone blows your whole position out of the water.

    "One needs to consider the needs of all outdoor enthusiasts and understand that buying a mountain bike doesn't entitle one to have a place to ride it,"
    How is biking in Wilderness not considering the needs of all outdoor enthusiasts? In pushing the continued expansion of MTB exclusions considering the needs of all outdoor enthusiasts? Find me one possible rational justification for this!

    "buying a mountain bike doesn't entitle one to have a place to ride it,"
    One could just as easily say that buying a horse doesn't entitle one to have a place to ride it or that buying a pair of hiking boots doesn't entitle one to have a place to hike in them!

    Your entire argumet is stupid on its face and entirely indefensible form any logical perspective.
    Last edited by Fischman; 08-20-2011 at 09:11 PM. Reason: Necessary sentence omitted from original.
    All other things are rarely equal . . .

  47. #47
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    I've tried to Neg Trauma - But I must spread some more Neg-love around.
    Too bad there is nobody else in this thread that deserves it.
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  48. #48
    Nickel Havr
    Reputation: Eckstream1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,177

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    Quote Originally Posted by COTarHeel View Post
    Secondary Objective: pointing out absurdity in this Vandeman clown's "arguments."

    The guy admits to having not biked on a trail and clearly knows nothing about how we operate when we do. Notably with his ignorant statements about how we can't stop, don't experience nature or the trail (after he talks about how much attention we must pay to it), and are all apparently inconsiderate, short-tempered, rule-ignoring asshats who don't care about anything but our addiction*. I am also a little bothered by his apparent lust for pointing out biker injuries and deaths. I'd like to email him news stories every time a hiker got attacked by a bear or fell off a waterfall, but then again, I wouldn't enjoy pointing out the misfortunes of others like he seems to.

    Mini rant out!

    *I'll give him that he's right in that biking can be addicting
    The crazy part about Mr. Vandeman is that he seems to support "outlaw" "renegade" bikers... Here is a paper he wrote himself!

    Letters: Critical Mass

    My favorite quote from the paper...

    "If anything, Critical Mass is too tame. Random vandalism makes no sense, because it doesn't focus attention on the real issues, but focused, physical protests such as blocking traffic (just as parades and funerals do -- and aren't we a parade/funeral celebrating the death of the Age of the Automobile?) and riding on the freeway seem like a natural reaction to a real threat to our health and well being."

    They also have a great FAQ on Evergreenmtb.org
    The Mike Vandeman Frequently Asked Questions


    PS: Here is his Email
    mjvande@pacbell.net
    Last edited by Eckstream1; 08-20-2011 at 01:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by William Blake
    Great things are done when men and mountains meet. This is not done by jostling in the street .

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,339
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    The theme of the thread is the restrictions placed on the use of the wilderness, not gay marriage, abortions, or whatever, so try to keep up.

    Secondly, before you say more about what little you know about this van guy, I suggest you do some research; the guy is a cradle to the grave leftwing liberal. Now, go troll somewhere else with your personal issues.

    TraumaARNP: A cheetah is a mammal; therefore all mammals are cheetahs

    Nikojan: What about zebras?

    TraumaARNP: Dude, shut up. We are talking about reptiles here. Not O/T stuff like mammals.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    Therein lies the rub, for way too long, I have witnessed the concept of whatever you bring with you (read: food scraps, cans, bottles, cigarette butts, condoms, plastic refuse, etc.) you just leave behind. The thinking of too many people over many years was just throw it away, and somebody will take care of it. While I am no fan of many of these Byzantine enviro-nutbag inspired regulations, I can see how they have come about. For decades, we as the premier top feeder, have sullied our forests, our beaches, and our oceans; I can still remember how boaters 10 miles+ out from the Outer Banks would just dump all their trash in the ocean before heading back to port. I can remember back in the 80's, the US Navy dumping tons of trash into the abyss without so much as a thought to the environmental impact of what seemed to be an enormous body of water. I remember how as a kid, my parents, my uncles, my aunts, and my cousins would get to the beach early Sunday morning, and spend a good hour policing up the spot that we wanted to lay claim to for the day, because the previous "occupants" from the day before didn't give a rat's azz and left all their trash behind (and this was way, way before people had an environmental conscience).

    We only have ourselves to blame for these fanatical. rabid, and overzealous rules, and it will be quite some time before humans can be trusted to do the right thing with our natural resources.
    See the great pacific garbage dump, our Navy still tosses all its waste overboard, it also dumps the majority of its fuel into the ocean before it goes into port, the US government is arguably the worlds worst polluter yet people somehow think its ok to let them ruin our lives further via legislation. Now IM not saying it does not have a place, it does, very well controlled with the citizens thumbs on it.
    One of its places is doing its job and cleaning up after our messes which is what our tax dollars are their for, something our government does not seem to think is necessary.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    See the great pacific garbage dump, our Navy still tosses all its waste overboard, it also dumps the majority of its fuel into the ocean before it goes into port,
    Do you have a source for this? I was Army so I have no experience with how the Navy operates, but in this day and age what you are saying would surprise me.

    And back on topic: Thanks chum for the interesting link. Reading the article and then ending up at the NWHiker forum I could see the predictable shift in sentiment.

    My general observation is our attitude can help or hurt the situation. We as Mtb'rs have to keep this in mind if we want positive change.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: onlyoyster99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaLL6 View Post
    My general observation is our attitude can help or hurt the situation. We as Mtb'rs have to keep this in mind if we want positive change.
    Wait. I don't understand why we always have to keep the positive attitude in situations. Now I'm not saying we go all barbarian on these guys or anything but I've read the feedback on the hiker forum and its pretty obvious that they aren't having a positive attitude about anything. I snowmobile as well. It is a sport the same groups are trying to eliminate They use bogus arguments and old data to use against us. Ant for the most part, they succeed. In the snowmobiling community we have tried and tried to use a positive attitude and its got us nowhere. It seems to be getting us nowhere over here too. Now I understand that the situation with mountain bikes is not as severe as snowmobiling but I can tell that there is a struggle with land use. I haven't seen any bogus data used against them but maybe we should try. Use their tactics against them. It just may work.

  53. #53
    What does a bean mean?!
    Reputation: COTarHeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaLL6 View Post
    Do you have a source for this? I was Army so I have no experience with how the Navy operates, but in this day and age what you are saying would surprise me.
    This caught my attention too and I would also like more info on it. Dumping garbage (unfortunately) doesn't surprise me so much, but dumping fuel does. I know aircraft will dump fuel because they have a maximum landing weight. Do ships have to 'make weight' too?

    Quote Originally Posted by onlyoyster99 View Post
    Wait. I don't understand why we always have to keep the positive attitude in situations. Now I'm not saying we go all barbarian on these guys or anything but I've read the feedback on the hiker forum and its pretty obvious that they aren't having a positive attitude about anything. I snowmobile as well. It is a sport the same groups are trying to eliminate They use bogus arguments and old data to use against us. Ant for the most part, they succeed. In the snowmobiling community we have tried and tried to use a positive attitude and its got us nowhere. It seems to be getting us nowhere over here too. Now I understand that the situation with mountain bikes is not as severe as snowmobiling but I can tell that there is a struggle with land use. I haven't seen any bogus data used against them but maybe we should try. Use their tactics against them. It just may work.
    I also think like this sometimes. Obviously we don't want to be abrasive d!cks when trying to get access to more trails. But that said, sometimes it takes more than "please" and "thank you." Sometimes I feel like bikers try to play nice too much, and end up saying "Well, we should be happy with what we got..." out of some land use decision. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    I just want to ride the Galiuro Mountains here in Arizona. It's almost all wilderness, even the southern end is rarely visited Redfield Wilderness. This is a large mountain range, could make a world class mountain park, and income for Willcox. You want solitude, you can find it there.
    Anyone wants to roll to the wilderness boundary, I'm ready for a hike.

    If the Galiuros were opened up for mountain biking Willcox, AZ might be the next Moab.
    Last edited by abegold; 08-21-2011 at 02:06 PM.
    agmtb

  55. #55
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,602
    Quote Originally Posted by uno?dos!tres. View Post
    The only reason why this guy keeps getting publicity is because you morons keep laughing
    How come I can't give any rep to uno?dos!tres.?
    I ride with the best dogs.




  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Says he's banned.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    You wouldn't have been banned if every other word wasn't its own post...this isn't twitter, your posts can exceed 240 characters
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    76
    Here is a link thats some what relative to the battle mountain bikers face. Misconceptions run rampant and its time to write (inundate) to elected officials who propose changes to the wilderness areas.

    Pacific Crest Trail Association - Trail Threat - Mountain Bikes


    What slays me, as an ex mountain climber/ hard core hiker, the Pacific Crest group is in bed with the equestrian groups. Walking through horse shat and all the biting flies that come with it was always a pet peave of mine.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaLL6 View Post
    Do you have a source for this? I was Army so I have no experience with how the Navy operates, but in this day and age what you are saying would surprise me.

    And back on topic: Thanks chum for the interesting link. Reading the article and then ending up at the NWHiker forum I could see the predictable shift in sentiment.

    My general observation is our attitude can help or hurt the situation. We as Mtb'rs have to keep this in mind if we want positive change.
    Business | Law Gives Navy OK To Dump Tons Of Trash In Seas | Seattle Times Newspaper

    some things have changed apparently.

    Is Navy "Trash Call" legal? (video provided) - Straight Dope Message Board

    Seems to be quit a bit of links on this forum.

  60. #60
    Yes, that's fonetic
    Reputation: whoda*huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll View Post
    I've tried to Neg Trauma - But I must spread some more Neg-love around.
    Too bad there is nobody else in this thread that deserves it.
    If you have a hankerin' for neggin someone, I'll take it. I haven't had an uncalled for red square for days now.

    Edit: Thanks(?) I probably deserved it for something i did at one time or another and who needs multiple green squares.
    Last edited by whoda*huck; 08-22-2011 at 09:38 AM.

  61. #61
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    I might be a dumbar$$, but wilderness is just one name for public land. I don't want to ride something delicate, ancient and irreplaceable. Backcountry riding does not have to imply "wilderness" and in reality there is a lot less wilderness than is being saved. It may exist elsewhere, but in global terms places like the USA or Australia name things wilderness that have been accessed regularly for "ever". Environment is not static. It changes. Legislation cannot change that and change is not always bad.

    I don't want to ride into a walker, horse, Van da dick head any more than a tree or rock. Simple. Give me my own trail. MTB only. Far from walkers and nags and politicians. Make a dedicated MTB trail from ground-up and all the arguments of erosion, safety and threat evaporate.

    MTB is not bad for trails. Bad trails are bad for MTB.

    Public land belongs to the people, not just those who "know best"!

  62. #62
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridnparadise View Post
    I might be a dumbar$$, but wilderness is just one name for public land. I don't want to ride something delicate, ancient and irreplaceable. Backcountry riding does not have to imply "wilderness" and in reality there is a lot less wilderness than is being saved. It may exist elsewhere, but in global terms places like the USA or Australia name things wilderness that have been accessed regularly for "ever". Environment is not static. It changes. Legislation cannot change that and change is not always bad.

    I don't want to ride into a walker, horse, Van da dick head any more than a tree or rock. Simple. Give me my own trail. MTB only. Far from walkers and nags and politicians. Make a dedicated MTB trail from ground-up and all the arguments of erosion, safety and threat evaporate.

    MTB is not bad for trails. Bad trails are bad for MTB.

    Public land belongs to the people, not just those who "know best"!
    I get what you're saying. but because the concept of wilderness is so individual, the purists believe everything is "delicate, ancient and irreplaceable." And as has been the case for a lot of US Wilderness designations, many would designate an area as Wilderness in an attempt to make it "delicate, ancient and irreplaceable" in the future. I visited one about an hour from me earlier in the summer for a hike. Very quiet, yes, but there was a home in good shape less than 50ft from the Wilderness boundary at the access point I used. At the boundary, dirt had been piled up and trees planted to obscure the trail, but once you got in, it became painfully obvious that the trail was once a continuation of the road that dead-ended at the boundary. Trail crews kept the trees and brush cut to maintain that width.

    As I walked along, I could identify sites where homesteads once stood and where livestock once roamed. Cars even once drove through here.

    People used to live here

    And the point of excluding bikes in a place like this is...?

  63. #63
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    A change in permissions of bicycle access to Wilderness won't necessarily result in permission to ride bicycles on any particular trail or group of trails. What it WOULD do at least at first is permit continued bicycle access to trails in newly designated Wilderness. I HOPE it would reopen some trails that were once closed simply due to designation as Wilderness.

    However it absolutely would be nice to have many long cross-country routes to choose from for bikepacking. There are some, but the option to cross Wilderness would definitely expand possibilities more.
    One thing that I definitely resent about Wilderness designated areas is that they result in a shortage of serious XC trails here in the States. I would probably have a bike set up for XC to go out and get bike-packing; but so be it. Maybe one day we will have more space.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    There seems to be more legislation against dumping, but of course that doesn't really prevent the random acts by individuals or crews.

  65. #65
    Now broadcasting from CO
    Reputation: PAmtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,223
    To reply to the OPs post, like you should do when you reply to a thread, this was a very good article (and follow up), and the discussion is generated has been very insightful.

    I say we all just ignore Mike Vandeman (or however you spell it) from now on...
    Brought to you by rocks.

  66. #66
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by CHUM View Post
    Sandsberry: Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness

    I know this is preaching to the choir - but it is refreshing to see this point of view coming from an avid hiker
    Chum,

    Would you be so kind as to provide definitions of

    mechanical
    conveyance and
    vehicle.

    Webster's Dictionary definitons should be fine, as it was in existence when this Wilderness Act was drafted and passed.

    Then, go preach to the choir, with those definitions in place.

    Thanks in advance.

  67. #67
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    So it is with mountain bikes and Wilderness. It didn't exist when Wilderness specifications were being implemented. It is a superior form of mechanized transport over any other type and our leaders have seen fit to abolish them from Wilderness areas, again, due to the actions of a selfish few.
    False. These images all predate the wilderness act by more than 60 years.
    Name:  bicycle1.jpg
Views: 279
Size:  20.7 KB
    Name:  bicycle2.jpg
Views: 272
Size:  25.4 KB
    Mountain bikers belong in the Wilderness - NEW Follow up story-getimage.exe.jpg

    If "our leaders" had seen fit to abolish bikes from Wilderness areas they would have said so instead of writing "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    I should add that owning a Gun is a Right, not a privilege, like mountain bikes, yet they are banned from being in possession in Wilderness areas. With that in mind, I can't see how mountain bikes will ever be allowed in Wilderness areas, when one of our basic rights has been stripped of us in Wilderness areas, the Right to Bear Arms.
    Again, like the majority of your posts that I see, false. There is no blanket ban on firearms in any Federal Wilderness or Forest.

    You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

  68. #68
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    Chum,

    Would you be so kind as to provide definitions of

    mechanical
    conveyance and
    vehicle.

    Webster's Dictionary definitons should be fine, as it was in existence when this Wilderness Act was drafted and passed.

    Then, go preach to the choir, with those definitions in place.

    Thanks in advance.
    1. Per the CVC, which you are so fond of and was also in existence in 1964:
    Vehicle

    670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.


    2. As originally written by the USFS when putting the act into effect: "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    In legislation, important terms are defined under the law not by various dictionaries.

    Speaking of, you never answered this: Fighting the US Wilderness bicycle ban, is it possible?

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tim-H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridnparadise View Post
    Give me my own trail. MTB only. Far from walkers and nags and politicians. Make a dedicated MTB trail from ground-up and all the arguments of erosion, safety and threat evaporate.
    And what about those trails that used to be mountain bike trails? Trails that were built designed and maintained by mountain bikers only to have hikers move in and kick the mountain bikers out by calling it "wilderness"?

  70. #70
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Bart View Post


    Again, like the majority of your posts that I see, false. .
    ROFLMAO!!!!! That statement is statistically invalid. You lose.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by CarolinaLL6 View Post
    There seems to be more legislation against dumping, but of course that doesn't really prevent the random acts by individuals or crews.
    Yes and you can pretty much talk to anyone who was in the navy to have the above confirmed. course we all know the government takes peoples safety first and always follows the law which doenst apply in international waters which is the problem.

    Thanks for the neutral rep lol ya tool.

  72. #72
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Bart View Post
    1. Per the CVC, which you are so fond of and was also in existence in 1964:
    Vehicle

    670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.


    2. As originally written by the USFS when putting the act into effect: "Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device."

    In legislation, important terms are defined under the law not by various dictionaries.

    Speaking of, you never answered this: Fighting the US Wilderness bicycle ban, is it possible?

    I lost you long ago with your claimed statistics of a Majority of your readings of mine. Is that 50% PLUS one, or 2/3 of all my posts. With your deficient logic, I've added you to my list of Libtards on my ignore list. You should feel honored, there is but one other person on there.

  73. #73
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    ROFLMAO!!!!! That statement is statistically invalid. You lose.
    Other than posts that I have replied to, you have no idea which of your posts I have seen or which I haven't, therefore you are in no position to dispute the validity of my statement. Of your posts that I have replied to, you have a 100% rate of including lies, untrue, misinformed or false statements.

    You could respond to the rest of my 2 posts here that illustrate the absurdity of your claims about the original intent of the Wilderness Act (or firearm prohibitions) but I guess that's hard to do without thinking up some more false "facts".

  74. #74
    namagomi
    Reputation: electrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,884
    Really what you're dealing with is some mangled Luddite philosophy here. That somehow the character of wilderness and technology(your bicycle) can't happily mix. It is hypocritical and ludicrous in this day and age after all the studies and thousands of un-intrusive single tracks existing. What it reaks of is some ill informed paranoid radical environmentalist attitude that considers hiking so elite and natural that to admit any unilaterally labeled un-natural device would be an unmitigated disaster.

  75. #75
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy View Post
    I lost you long ago with your claimed statistics of a Majority of your readings of mine. Is that 50% PLUS one, or 2/3 of all my posts. With your deficient logic, I've added you to my list of Libtards on my ignore list. You should feel honored, there is but one other person on there.
    If you can't handle the truth, run and hide. I guess that's the easy way out.

    When I had the misfortune to meet you in person you were just as deluded as I find you to be online. To paraphrase randy, "Bionicon (and other bike companies) should give me special treatment because I'm such an internet superstar!"

    BTW, you also really creeped out my girlfriend.

    Signed,

    A gun owning, red state residing "libtard"

    edit: Sorry you're ignoring me, I'll miss your expertly crafted and well thought out counterpoints. Oh right, that never happened, um, don't let the door hit you...

  76. #76
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    "Libtards" = minus rep
    You don't see the nonsensical verbiage used from the left
    -Gun owning, gov't hating Libertarian
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  77. #77
    Banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,885
    why do threads like this have to end up in a place like this? it simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. not every thread on a disputable issue has to become a heated debate.

    here's my thoughts on the thread

    awesome! I'm glad to hear that some hikers have heart for us
    maybe their interpretation of the law on Wilderness isn't entirely correct- but that isn't of my concern
    it's obvious to me that Elitists won't change simply because of someone pointing out a flaw in the writing

    so we'll have to go about it by different means
    laws can be changed and I think it would be worth our time to start there instead

  78. #78
    Yes, that's fonetic
    Reputation: whoda*huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    why do threads like this have to end up in a place like this? it simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. not every thread on a disputable issue has to become a heated debate.
    You new or what?

  79. #79
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,108
    ehigh, I don't care for the politics either, but there's no way I can feel good about acknowledging institutionalized and insane ideas for the sake of changing things that should need no changing. Challenging law and battling against government departments to state your right to access public land? Sounds like a WOFTAM to me. Gives an identity to the opposition that they don't deserve. Let's see them bust groups of 100+ people (riders) using their right to move freely around their country.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Thanks for the neutral rep lol ya tool.
    Random comment or was it connected to my comment?

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll View Post
    "Libtards" = minus rep
    You don't see the nonsensical verbiage used from the left
    -Gun owning, gov't hating Libertarian
    I disagree with the name calling from either side because it clouds the issue, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Just go to the Prius thread and other popular threads involving GWB or similar and you will see words like "nut job" and "bagger" also used. They might not be used by many, but they are being used.

  82. #82
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    ^^^ You are right Carolina...I should've said that there are more baseless accusations and name-calling from the right than the left. The left is not w/out blame. They BOTH suck!
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  83. #83
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    The partisan vitriol gets us nowhere. It's one situation where I will hand out neg rep freely. The discussion here was going so well until the partisan namecalling showed up. Why is it so hard to get past the childish behavior and think for a change? True, our government is not exactly a shining example for us to follow, but we can do better

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    yea no sense showing any emotion why bother utilizing your supposed right to free speach?

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    I will go ahead and formally apologise to Carlina, apparently we had a misunderstanding.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CarolinaLL6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    960
    Cool

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Bart View Post
    You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.
    People make up their own facts when they can't make a coherent argument.

    I accidentally rode my bike in a wilderness area when I was a kid because it was an old logging road at first anyway. I came back and my parents told me I wasn't allowed to ride in wilderness areas. That was the last time I did, but certainly not the last time I would have liked to.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Bart View Post
    ...

    A gun owning, red state residing "libtard"

    edit: Sorry you're ignoring me, I'll miss your expertly crafted and well thought out counterpoints. Oh right, that never happened, um, don't let the door hit you...
    Very witty. . Liked the one about opinions versus facts as well.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    The partisan vitriol gets us nowhere. It's one situation where I will hand out neg rep freely. The discussion here was going so well until the partisan namecalling showed up. Why is it so hard to get past the childish behavior and think for a change? True, our government is not exactly a shining example for us to follow, but we can do better
    I couldn't agree more. What's particularly frustrating is the stereotyping and lazy thinking that goes with it. No group has a monopoly on truth, virtue, good ideas or bad ideas.

  90. #90
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaARNP View Post
    It's your childish, obsessive, thin skinned, and obviously biased mental state, coupled with your multiple attempts to derail this thread to the Recycle bin with your ignorant rants about how you hate politics, how you deny the fact that Vandeman is a leftwing libnut, how you go out of your way to brag about giving neg reps to those who are not of your political liking speaks volumes of your inability to accept that free speech goes both ways; it's not just for manic-depressive libtards like yourself in mega-denial of the facts. As others have stated, you are entitled to your ignorant opinions, but not the facts. Grow a pair, and accept the fact that not everyone hallucinates like you.

    P.S. There are a lot of good, intelligent, open minded posts in this thread, and none are yours; yours stink of anger, resentment, pathological bias, and an overwhelming sense of entitlement and self importance. Not to worry, though Francis, you'll be able to ding me again with a neg rep soon enough, I'm sure, as one of your sock puppet suck ups just did regarding this post.
    Umm, pot, meet kettle?

    So if Vandeman is a leftwing libnut whatever, (most just call him a nut job) then that would make Loughner a ________________? (please fill in the blank)

  91. #91
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,355
    ennnemmmm
    Last edited by Harold; 08-26-2011 at 12:44 PM.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    lol@ the negative rep being given out by those who are arguing the most about frivolous things, Hillarious.

  93. #93
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,492
    Nvm ...
    Last edited by highdelll; 08-26-2011 at 06:46 AM.
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  94. #94
    Nickel Havr
    Reputation: Eckstream1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,177
    Um... Vandeman is just a nut. It has nothing to do with left or right...
    He has his own agenda!
    Quote Originally Posted by William Blake
    Great things are done when men and mountains meet. This is not done by jostling in the street .

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    68
    The whole subject is a waste of time, IMBA has no interest in pushing for mountain bikes in Wilderness areas. Too bad. Maybe you guys should be talking to IMBA.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nikojan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll View Post
    "Libtards" = minus rep
    You don't see the nonsensical verbiage used from the left
    -Gun owning, gov't hating Libertarian
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to highdelll again.
    I'll make sure to +rep that when it allows me.
    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride." - John F. Kennedy

    Setup:
    11' Giant XTC 2 29er

Similar Threads

  1. New Sedona Mountain Bike Trail Built Soely by Mountain Bikers
    By traildoc in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 03:32 PM
  2. ERTC Thumbs Nose at Mountain Bikers - Supports Wilderness
    By outdoornut in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 10:56 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-21-2006, 12:25 PM
  4. Mountain bikers unite to oppose wilderness plan
    By JerryBoneJr in forum Oregon
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-20-2004, 07:01 PM
  5. Mountain bikers unite to oppose wilderness plan
    By JerryBoneJr in forum Washington
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:13 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.